EU Borders: Hand and Face Scanning

Viscount Goschen Excerpts

Wednesday 17th April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for that. That is a long-overdue compliment to the passport service, which has been operating extraordinarily efficiently now for quite some time. I remember there was a lot of disquiet on Opposition Benches post Covid about how long it took to square off the backlog. I have not heard any commendations for its recent very strong performance.

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

My Lords, can my noble friend give an indication of the comparison that has been made between the efficacy and performance of the systems planned to be introduced on the other side of the channel and those systems that are in place at the UK end of passport control and immigration? Is he satisfied that our technology deployed in the UK is at least of equivalent complexity and competency?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I cannot say whether it is of the same complexity, but I can say that the ETA system, which, as noble Lords will be aware, began to be rolled out last year, is working very efficiently, so I am very optimistic about our end of the bargain.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Viscount Goschen Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I broadly support what the Government are trying to do here. There will be times when you might disagree with some of the language, but it seems to me that the only reason why the Government are bringing forward these proposals is that they have been asked to. I do not think they set off with an agenda to limit protest, but presumably people have complained about it. The public have complained; the media have complained, representing the public; and sometimes the police have complained—and everybody has complained about the police, which is not an unusual place to be. That is the nature of the job.

What the police want is some simple law that they can implement on behalf of the public to protect the weak against those who sometimes intimidate them. That seems to me to be what this part of the Bill is trying to address.

British policing, and criminal law generally, has always been about doing what is reasonable and making criminal what is unreasonable. It is about trying to strike that balance all the time. In most protests, people carry out their protest in a peaceful way that attracts attention. Sometimes it gets change and sometimes it fails. Sometimes it moves along the spectrum from irritation to nuisance, to serious disruption to life, to crime, to serious crime. Protests in the last group are relatively small in number, but when they happen they are pretty awful.

On the whole, the police do not want to be there. They are not seeking to be at a public protest, but in London you are probably talking about at least one protest march a day, every working day. Just to show the scale of the challenge that the Metropolitan Police faces—it happens in other parts of the country, but of course the Government, who attract most of the protests, are in London—on average, 400 or 500 officers are still drawn into central London every day for something called aid. It may see them coming out of Croydon or Lewisham to police central London, because there is no separate box; they have to come in to help police these types of protest. Of course, when they are doing that they are not in Croydon, Lewisham and all the other places, so it is something of significance that we all have to consider when we talk about the number of protests and the type that we allow.

The most difficult types of protest—I think this is pertinent to whether a senior police officer should have some powers in these cases—are those where the protesters generally do not engage or explain their plans. When both those things happen, on the whole, plans can be made. The police may not always agree with a certain approach, but some kind of agreement will be reached. That enables everybody to plan. The disruption that will flow is probably restrained to a reasonable amount. That goes back to the reasonableness test.

When those things do not happen—the people do not engage, do not have organisers who are prepared to engage, or do not even acknowledge that there are organisers, or they are prepared to take what others may regard as unreasonable action—it gets pretty hard for the police to deal with it and, more importantly, for the public to deal with the consequences.

The types of unreasonable things that I think everyone is always worried about include interference with free movement. That can mean just blocking a road. I do not think anybody minds it for five minutes, but an hour, four hours? We all have our own limits, but when it goes on for a long time, serious disruption can happen. Another type is any disruption of public space generally; we all want to go where we want to go, when we want to go there. Some of the people in this Chamber will be the most aggravated in dealing with cops who prevent them travelling through a protest, saying that they have a right to go where they want to go. They have a right to move around too, and of course we all have the right to enjoy our homes and places where we have a business. There are times when we all have a right to make the nuisance caused clear to the police and expect them to take some action.

Some of the tactics have changed recently. That is the nature of protests; they will always change. You are never going to have the protests of 50 years ago, as people will move on to try to achieve a new aim. We have seen the M25 blocked and Heathrow invaded. There was one case where protestors broke through a perimeter fence, went in and disrupted the international airport; eventually, they were found not guilty. Fine, if that is what happened in that case, but I do not think it a very safe thing to do, in the case of either the motorway or the international airport. Is it for the protester to decide what is safe and reasonable or is it for some objective standard? I cannot see how it is okay for you to be driving along the M25 at 70 miles per hour, at least, for people to decide it is now okay to block the road. I agree that obstruction of the highway is an existing offence, but this is something of far more gravity, which needs a new approach. The police struggle to interfere when people are preparing for acts of protest, where there is going to be a disruption. This is another thing that the legislation is trying to address.

I will mention some of the specific items that people have rightly been concerned about in this Bill. The first is noise. As the noble Lord, Lord Walney, said on noise, just because I shout, does that mean I am going to be locked up? That has never been the case and I doubt that it ever will be in the future but, whether it is 150 decibels, or 10 decibels in your ear for two hours or four hours, noise can be more than an irritant. We have a right to enjoy peace in whichever way we prefer. Noise can be injurious of itself.

I went to Notting Hill carnival every year on the bank holiday Monday. For anybody who has not been, and the ex-commander and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, must have been, there are these huge amplifiers. I do not know how many decibels they produce, but they are the size of a two-storey house. They can produce some significant effects. In fact, the police horses had to shift back, because they were knocked back by the percussion from the loudspeakers. Noise can be an irritant and do damage. We have to consider its effect on people, where it is either so loud or so persistent that it cannot be ignored. If people turn around to the police and say, “What are you going to do about it?” and they say, “Actually, it’s not illegal. It is okay and you shouldn’t be irritated by it,” that will not work. I will come back to why that is something that we have to think about.

I agree that it is hard to imagine a single-person protest of such significance that the police should intervene. However, we have seen it outside this place. Somebody with the right amplification can cause a lot of effect, particularly if it is outside your front door or business. People will ask for help and the police need to know where they stand on that. If Parliament does not want to help them to decide that issue, it is left to the officer on the street to decide. That goes back to the simple advice, at three o’clock in the morning or more likely nine o’clock at night, to make their own decisions. They are pretty good at acute problem-solving, but they deserve the support of Parliament to be clear about what is and is not okay.

There has been a slight tone from some contributions —perhaps this is just my old sensitivities—of “How can we possibly expect the police to make this type of decision?” I have to say that they make it every day and usually quite reasonably. Senior police officers have been making it on public order for years. Occasionally, it goes wrong but, on the whole, the British police get these things right. There are many things you can criticise the British police for, as we hear every day in here, but I do not think that dealing badly with protests is one of them. You can trust the cops to get this right and be reasonable, because they do not seek to fall out with the majority—or with anybody, come to that. I honestly think that you could trust them to make this type of decision, provided that the legislation is clear. There has been some challenge to the language, which I support, in some cases, as you can always make language more precise.

My final point is that it is important to get this right, for no other reason than that there is a debate between protesters’ right to protest and the police’s right to intervene. If we do not get it right, we leave the public to intervene on their own account. We have already seen examples of that. Before the cops arrived, the people at the front of the queue who were getting blocked said, “I’m going to move you. You’ve got two choices.” When the police arrived, it was a difficult situation to resolve. The law needs to be clear. There is a duty on the law, set by Parliament, to make clear lines in the sand, so that you do not leave members of the public to decide for themselves. That will end in the worst of all worlds.

To go back to my first point, the Government have only reacted to the concerns expressed by the public initially, sometimes through the vehicle of the media but also through the political process. I do not think that what has been proposed is entirely unreasonable. It can always be improved in this process and on Report, but it would be foolish to suggest that it is completely unreasonable to change the law to adapt to the tactics of the protesters.

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

My Lords, my speech can be very quick because I should just like to associate myself with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. It was an exceptionally informative and balanced speech about just how difficult these issues are and how difficult the job of the police is to draw that balance and get it right. We should all be extremely grateful that we are policed in such a consensual and high-quality way.

I spoke about this at Second Reading and we have had an exceptionally interesting debate here in Committee. I shall make just a couple of points. First, we ought to avoid, if at all possible, differentiating between good protests, on an issue that I agree with, and bad protests, on an issue that I disagree with. We should resist the temptation to talk about specific causes. The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, made that point in one of her two speeches; I think that it was the second one.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

Forgive me, but I did not make two speeches. I asked the Committee’s permission to read the remarks of my noble friend Lord Hendy because he could not be here to speak to his Amendment 304. I thought that I had the consent of the Committee. If I misunderstood that, I apologise, but I did not intend to make two speeches on my own part.

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness spoke for nearly 20 minutes and I am attempting to speak for about two minutes.

We ought to avoid drawing the distinction to which I referred. However, there is a clear difference between a lawful expression of protest drawing attention to a particular issue, wanting it to be heard, and a deliberate and aggressive attempt to disrupt the lives of the general public. That is what we have seen over recent weeks. It is entirely reasonable that we look carefully at the current legislative settlement and examine what can be done with the existing powers. I hear the remarks made that the police have the powers that they need. Some feel that they do and others do not. That matter should be carefully looked at.

However, where there are gaps and where the police require additional powers to take those finely balanced judgments, it is entirely legitimate that we look at that in the Bill while maintaining a clear balance and making sure that we do not trespass too much on some of the issues that have been raised around, for example, noise. In essence, there are grounds for a constructive debate and finding that balance. It is never going to get everyone’s support but we all ought to look beyond the Westminster bubble and consider the reaction of the general public when they see their lives and critical national infrastructure such as transport being substantially disrupted and when the police are unable to deal with it effectively.

[Lord Judge (CB)]

My Lords, I am not sure that I would have been elected Convenor of the Cross Benches if my colleagues had known that I, too, was once a protester.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Viscount Goschen Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 14th September 2021 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

My Lords, one can sense the eagerness and anticipation in this House, particularly among the seasoned parliamentary guerrilla fighters, to tackle a very broad range of issues that come within this very large Bill. Yes, it is a big Bill, but it covers a lot of very important subjects. I listened to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, attack the scale and scope of the Bill, but I recall a number of pretty weighty criminal justice Bills being introduced by the Government of whom he was a distinguished member, and having sat through many dozens of hours of scrutiny.

None the less, I accept the noble and learned Lord’s point—and it was made in a particularly poignant fashion by my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier—that we should really only legislate where a change in the law would genuinely address a challenge at hand that could not be tackled by better execution of the legislative powers that we already had. That should certainly be our watchword when considering a Bill such as this, rather than to govern by initiative.

Nevertheless, we have some very serious problems that we cannot just duck because they are difficult and complex. It is clearly not right that thousands—and, on occasion, millions—of people should have their lives and their human rights disrupted by aggressive and well-organised militants whose intention is the disruption itself rather than the protest. The world has changed, particularly as a result of technology and related social media, and we have to adapt accordingly.

I do not doubt that it is very difficult to find the right balance, and to find that just line to draw; however, I also strongly feel that it is wrong to belittle serious and thorough attempts to adapt the legislative framework to protect the rights of those who want to protest while equally protecting the rights of the vast majority to go about their lawful business without serious disruption. It is clear in my mind that the balance is not right now, as is shown by daily events. To bury our heads in the sand and refuse to recognise the problem is to abrogate our responsibility.

Have the Government got the balance right in this Bill? I must confess that I do not know. There are a lot of experts in this House, and I look forward to hearing what will be, no doubt, passionate debates on this subject. Similarly, I do not feel that we can ignore the fact that we have a serious problem with unauthorised encampments. There have been too many instances of great disruption and distress caused to local communities that have had to endure violence, intimidation, crime and damage to property, among other consequences. I hope that we will be able to consider this matter in the calm, balanced and respectful manner which is the hallmark of debate in your Lordships’ House, without questioning the motives of those who are seriously attempting to find a fair and balanced legislative solution.

This is an important Bill, covering a very broad range of subjects. I have a feeling that it will be a slightly less broad Bill by the time it departs this House, but we owe it to everyone to examine the proposals put forward, and the manner in which they have been put forward, with due consideration.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Viscount Goschen Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 5th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Goschen (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I too wish to welcome the Bill, which has received such widespread support. The Government are to be congratulated on bringing forward this important legislation.

Understanding of the nature of domestic abuse has grown immeasurably over recent years, not least as the result of powerful and effective advocacy from campaigning organisations. We have certainly come a long way from the situation historically, when domestic crime was seen in some quarters to be a private matter, to the current position where the dangers and severity of these crimes are properly recognised. This understanding has highlighted the need for bespoke, targeted legislation, which is indeed what we have before us.

I well recall the debate in this House we had in July 2017, introduced by my noble friend Lady Manzoor. The prospect of this Bill was a major focus point of that debate three and a half years ago, and now we have it before us today. As many others have stated, it represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to strengthen the legislative framework in this area, to target it more effectively and, of course, to provide proper safeguards.

I have learned a great deal from the speeches today, some of which, I have to say, have made very difficult and harrowing listening. Beyond expressing my broad welcome for the Bill, I would like to use my limited time to lend my support to one specific issue, which is the protection provided to a victim who is no longer living with the perpetrator—an issue raised by my noble friend Lady Bertin and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, among others.

In considering this issue, I am indebted to research from the University of Sussex, which has highlighted a significant problem with the current legislative settlement. As we have heard, the essence of the problem is that the Serious Crime Act 2015—the legislation that creates the offence of coercive or controlling behaviour—has a residency requirement, which means that the victim and the perpetrator need to be living together for the offence to be covered by the provisions of the Act. This means that former partners who were previously living together but now live apart are not caught by this provision, and thus, the full protection of the Act is not provided. This anomaly provides a perverse disincentive to victims considering, or in the process of, leaving their partners. We also know from research that separation from an abusive partner can be a trigger to violent behaviour, even homicide.

With the Bill before us we have a very straightforward solution to the problem. The enhanced definition of connected persons in Clause 2, right at the front, does not have that residency restriction in it. It therefore seems entirely logical for this new, enhanced definition to replace the equivalent provision in the Serious Crime Act. We would then have harmonisation, or coherence in the law, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, used in another context.

This Bill is classic House of Lords territory. Seldom have I heard such consensus around the Chamber in support of the overall policies contained in a major Home Office Bill, with almost all contributions focused on detailed areas where improvements can be made. We are very fortunate indeed to have a Minister handling the Bill who is herself an expert in this field, and we can look forward to detailed and pragmatic consideration of the forthcoming stages.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)]

The next speaker, I hope, is the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon. We cannot hear him.

Domestic Violence and Abuse

Viscount Goschen Excerpts

Thursday 6th July 2017 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lady Manzoor for giving the House the opportunity to discuss this important and difficult subject this afternoon. I would like to make a short intervention in the debate to make only five points.

The first is to welcome the fact that this important issue receives a very much higher profile now than has historically been the case. The work of campaigners both inside and outside Parliament—I very much include those who have spoken in this debate, particularly my noble friend Lady Newlove, who made a very moving contribution just a moment ago—has brought this widespread and horrific crime to greater pubic prominence. I pay tribute to all those in the police, the health and social services, and the voluntary sector who have done, and continue to do, so much to ensure that the protection and support available is immeasurably better now than was the case only a few years ago. That is not in any way to diminish the very powerful representations that have been made for yet better services and greater co-ordination between agencies in the protection of victims.

I would like to refer to the Rob and Helen story that occurred in “The Archers”. It probably brought this issue to greater public prominence than any other single initiative in the UK for very many years, if not ever. I understand that more than 1 million additional listeners tuned in to hear the final throes of this moving and deeply disturbing story. It perhaps humanised the issue and brought home the realities of coercive control, to which a number of noble Lords have referred. Perhaps the BBC, which comes in for a lot of stick, should be commended for taking this brave initiative, which has done so much good.

It is important to seek to quantify the scale of the issue. As we have heard, the official statistics tell only part of the story. According to the ones that I saw for 2013-14, 887,000 incidents of domestic violence were recorded by the police. Those figure are now a couple of years out of date but they give a good indication of the situation. The true level is very difficult to measure, for all the reasons of non-reporting that are easy to understand, but the true scale is in the order of 2 million incidents, which is a huge number if one considers the adult population of the UK. There are thought to be currently 100,000 individuals in the country at high or imminent risk of serious abuse. I was also very interested to hear the words of my noble friend Lady Manzoor, who referred to the plight of older victims. I agree that they do not receive the degree of prominence that they should, and I am sure that it is an uncovered area of significant concern.

Secondly, I draw the House’s attention to the report entitled Getting it Right First Time, produced by the charity SafeLives in 2015. This is an excellent and well-thought-out piece of work, drawing some very pragmatic conclusions about areas where the support provided by different agencies could be enhanced. This charity was originally set up in 2005 as Co-ordinated Action Against Domestic Abuse—CAADA. It advocates the use of a risk-based approach, prioritising those at greatest risk of harm, and it takes a modern, facts-based research approach towards this issue.

We know that early intervention is one of the keys. Finding families under threat earlier will save lives—that is, in my submission, unarguable. It has been estimated that 85% of victims sought help from professionals, including from the medical profession, some five times on average in the year before they received effective help to stop the abuse. That represents five opportunities for disclosure of the issue, which, had they been taken, could have brought the situation to a stop a great deal earlier. Therefore, the argument for early intervention is very clear. Research also indicates that high-risk victims live with the situation for an average of between two and a half and three years before they receive successful help. During that time, the level of abuse almost invariably escalates, and the effect on children within the family over that average period can be very severe. On a more pragmatic note, late intervention is also very expensive, being estimated to cost more than £18,000 per instance. That is another powerful argument for more effort to be focused on earlier intervention.

Proactive identification and co-ordination are clearly also important. It is very clear that the strenuous efforts of the various agencies involved and recent positive initiatives have achieved a great deal, but there is a great deal more that can be done to ensure sufficient co-ordination between them. Greater co-ordination, proactively focused on early identification—and, in particular, on linkage between children’s and adult services—would be of great benefit. Although a great deal of work has been done to facilitate earlier identification, undoubtedly more could be done. Giving greater confidence to families that reporting will also result in effective action is also a priority, and, we hope, will promote the ability of people, as well as families and relatives, to reach out for help earlier and report incidents to the authorities.

Like other noble Lords across the House who have spoken, I welcome the draft domestic violence Bill, and in particular the focus on creating a robust and well-defined legal framework, which I understand will include for the first time a legal definition of the offence or offences and will consolidate the relevant legislation. That is a very positive development.

From my understanding the Bill has been well received, and its announcement has prompted many suggestions and recommendations from experts in this field. I was particularly struck by one line of argument that stressed the need to put the emphasis on the perpetrator rather than on the victim, utilising the risk-based approach that I referred to earlier in my remarks. I trust that this will be reflected in the Government’s consideration of the issue and in our deliberations when the Bill eventually comes before this House.

This is an extremely challenging, complex and multifaceted issue. We are all very grateful to my noble friend Lady Manzoor for having secured parliamentary time to air this important issue.

Civilian Use of Drones (EUC Report)

Viscount Goschen Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2015 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to make a short intervention in the gap. Perhaps I could start by declaring my interests, first, in that the business with which I work has extensive activities as a consultant to the aerospace and defence sector; secondly, that I am a private pilot; and perhaps, thirdly, that my young son is a rather skilled operator of a toy drone—he is a rather better pilot than his father.

This is an extraordinarily complex subject which we have sought to tackle both in the excellent report of the committee chaired by my noble friend and in the debate today. It feels like the House of Lords at its very best in terms of bringing together diverse strands, technical interests, futurology, regulation and a number of different areas of expertise.

I strongly feel that we are at the dawn of a new age of aviation. I was struck by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, who talked about convergence—it is a much overused term but in this circumstance it makes a lot of sense. My noble friend Lord Wei spoke about the internet of things. When we look to regulate this amorphous physical manifestation of the digital age, it is extremely difficult, and we are in danger of creating a regulatory structure where, by the time we have got it up and running, the target has moved away.

The potential for this field is enormous, and we have heard about a number of the applications today. Beyond physical surveillance and carriage of goods, there will be limitless applications that we have yet to consider or even to dream about, but I am very struck by the old technology and the new. The aircraft that I fly was designed in the 1930s; the engine that it flies behind is essentially the same as one that can be bought new off the shelf today. It is very low technology but it is very reliable. The computer in the aircraft that I fly is nearly 50 years old—it is standing addressing your Lordships’ House this evening, and it is deeply fallible compared with the iPhone and smartphone technology that we have heard about. However, we should embrace this new technology and this new industry. It offers fabulous potential not only in the aerospace industry—in its training and operations—but, most particularly, in a wealth of value-added services. I particularly welcome the analysis of the report in that regard.

Of course, there are very clear dangers. Twenty years ago, when I had some responsibilities for aviation regulation, this type of activity was only really thought of in terms of hobbyists’ remote-control aircraft. Now it is open to a much broader field. We know that potentially enormous conflicts could occur with civil commercial aircraft and military aviation; there are privacy implications; there are nuisance concerns; and there are the dangers of the technology being used for nefarious purposes by terrorists and others who seek to commit criminal acts.

We cannot possibly cover all this within the short time available to us, but I want to say just a word about regulation. I believe that the CAA has made a strong start with CAP 722 of the Air Navigation Order, which is the basic mechanism by which our physical aviation is governed. Airspace is at a premium, particularly class G open airspace. I want to make one plea to the Minister, which is that he takes fully into account all users of airspace including light aircraft operators and those who use the precious and limited class G airspace. We are looking at the convergence of regulation here; we are looking at how the CAA interacts with the police and those who seek to regulate digital access and digital technology. I am very much reminded of the passage of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill. By the time it became an Act, the world had moved on and we needed to start again.

I know that, having had the temerity to speak in the gap, I should now conclude my remarks. It is a fascinating field and I suspect that this report will provide a platform for many future debates.

Queen’s Speech

Viscount Goschen Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2014 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

My Lords, in his opening remarks to today’s session of debate on the gracious Speech, my noble friend Lord Faulks drew attention to the dangers of the so-called compensation culture, which he described as being worrying and as having a chilling effect on volunteering. I therefore very much welcome the series of announcements made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Justice as part of the Government’s campaign to crack down on insurance fraud.

The background to this is the depressing statistic from the Association of British Insurers which showed that the number of dishonest motor claims in 2013 increased by some 34%—a statistic worth dwelling on for a moment—to 59,900. While vehicle-related fraud is of course a major part of this, the tidal wave of claims of varying quality has a major effect on public bodies such as the National Health Service, education authorities and local government, as well as on businesses of many types. The situation we face has to a significant extent been exacerbated or even perhaps caused by the deregulation of conditional fee or so-called no-win no-fee arrangements, so that an industry of aggressive claims management companies has evolved.

In the introduction from the head of claims management regulation to that regulator’s annual report for 2012-13, he said:

“There is something about the nature of the claims industry which breeds, in too many that operate in it, a different kind of business behaviour—one that is less about putting the customer first and best business practice, but more about poor conduct and treating the consumer as little more than a commodity”.

That is a worrying state of affairs and that same regulator recorded some 12,000 complaints. That is a lot of complaints, many of which related to the PPI mis-selling scenario. Is it not a very rich irony that the greatest mis-selling scandal is now being exacerbated by the second greatest mis-selling scandal, namely that of claims management companies trying to engender greater levels of business?

Is it really right that these businesses should be aggressively touting for business by cold calling, texting or e-mailing the general public to encourage them to make a claim—any claim, it seems, and pretty much against anyone? This is backed up by relentless advertising on the television, online and in the print media, which is clearly targeted at those with time on their hands. The proposition seems to be very much, “Would you like to make some free money? Are you prepared to spend some time with us so that we can help you make a case?”. The regulator gives a case study of a claims management company in the north-west which generated many complaints about the “persistent and harassing” nature of its unsolicited calls:

“Consumers complained that they were encouraged to make a personal injury claim even where they had not suffered injury”.

That is an extraordinary state of affairs.

My right honourable friend’s recent announcement indicated certain areas where further action could be taken, namely: requiring courts to throw out compensation applications where claims have been fundamentally dishonest; banning lawyers or claims management companies from offering inducements in the form of cash or electronic goods; and improving the medical assessment of whip-lash injuries. There is much common sense there, but it might surprise some that courts do not already act on the first of those points and that strong medical assessments are not already in place.

My eye was taken by the measure which will ban lawyers from offering inducements in the form of cash and the advertising of that form of behaviour. However, will the Government take their clamp-down on this industry a step further? We now know that this is a £1 billion-pound industry, with many practitioners within it operating on a very dubious ethical basis, as the regulator conceded. I am not a banner by nature but in these particular circumstances, and until the industry can demonstrate its maturity and capability to act in a fair-minded way, I urge the Government to consider extending their suggested measure to ban the advertising of cash inducements into banning advertising overall for this industry.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Viscount Goschen Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Marlesford (Con)]

My Lords, in proposing the new clause in Amendment 22 to provide a new civil penalty for littering from vehicles I seek to insert part of my Private Member’s Bill, which was extraordinarily enthusiastically endorsed by the House, excluding the Minister from Defra, at Second Reading on 19 July. Eight speakers from all sides of the House were good enough to come in on that summer Friday to support it. Since then I have received two placebo letters from Ministers, one from my noble friend Lord De Mauley and the other from my noble friend Lord Taylor. In a sense, they both said the same thing. They both say—this is more or less a quotation—that the Government share my frustration with the problems of roadside litter. I suggest that Governments are not elected to share the frustration of electors. They are elected in the hope that they will deal with the cause of the frustration. We want action rather than words, and I am offering a rather simple form of action to help them.

I wish to replace the criminal offence of littering from vehicles, which does not work, with a civil offence, which would work. The criminal offence does not work because it is necessary to prove who threw the litter from the vehicle. My civil offence would make responsible the keeper of the vehicle from which litter is thrown. It would impose a small fine, which he or she could pass on to whichever person in the vehicle threw the litter, in exactly the same way as if somebody borrows my car and parks it where they should not I get the parking fine. That is not a criminal offence, and it is the right way to do it.

My noble friend Lord De Mauley, in his letter to me dated 16 September, rather surprisingly suggested that:

“Such an approach clearly raises questions of proportionality and civil liberties”.

I would have thought that it did the reverse. He goes on to say:

“Littering is an unnecessary and antisocial behaviour … Littering from vehicles, particularly moving vehicles, is a dangerous form of littering”.

He gets quite excited, because he goes on to say:

“The maximum fine which can be imposed on an individual convicted for littering is £2,500, which is clearly large enough to have an immediate effect on the financial situation of many individuals. Moreover, criminal convictions can result in higher insurance premiums or, in some cases, refusal of insurance. Unspent criminal convictions, including those for littering, also of course show up on any criminal record check carried out by a prospective employer, and must also be declared when applying for visas for travel to certain countries”.

That is a bit of a sledgehammer; I believe that my rather modest little proposal would be effective. The point about the sledgehammer is that not only is it not actually used, but it really is virtually impossible to use it. I hope that the Government, after this long period that we have waited—we have been discussing this for some while—could take some action.

My noble friend Lord Taylor wrote a very nice letter to me, in which he says:

“I recognise that it can be difficult for local authority enforcement officers to identify the offender when littering takes place from a vehicle, but providing for a civil penalty to be issued to the registered keeper … would … risk sending a message to the public that littering from vehicles is less serious compared to other littering”.

Yes, of course it is less serious. My noble friend Lord Goschen is about to introduce an amendment about the much more serious matter of fly-tipping. There is no comparison.

All these things are a matter of degree. We are fortunate in having several noble and learned former Law Lords in the House; I hesitate to say anything about the law because one knows nothing about it compared to everybody else here, but surely, proportionality and all that is very important. That is why I am hoping that the Government will recognise that something should be done about this problem.

Recently, my honourable friend Mr Dan Rogerson was given a new responsibility for the waste portfolio in the Government. He wrote to the waste sector saying that the Government was going to focus on,

“the essentials that only Government can and must do”.

He is putting forward,

“a limited programme of work on waste prevention, focusing our attention on the areas where action is clearly for Government”.

That fits in rather well with what I am proposing.

Since I have taken an interest in these matters, I have been on the close look-out when I have travelled. Certainly, in three countries in Europe this summer, in Arizona in the USA and last week in Hong Kong, I was very struck by how astonishingly clean they all were compared to Britain. It is really rather shocking that not only are we the way we are, but the Government are not enthusiastically supporting the measure I am suggesting or—which I would be perfectly happy with—proposing something better. I hope it will happen. I beg to move.

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Marlesford’s amendment, which largely reflects a Private Member’s Bill that the House discussed a while ago. It seems an eminently sensible measure and I look forward to a similarly positive and supportive reply from the Minister. My Amendment 22AA, which is grouped with that of my noble friend, deals with a different issue at the other end of the waste scale: it is to do with fly-tipping.

Fly-tipping is the deliberate, planned commission of a criminal act by the illegal dumping of waste. This is a crime which blights rural areas, including the one in which I live; if I therefore have an interest, I am more than happy to declare it. The scale of the situation is scarcely credible. In 2012-13, according to statistics produced by Defra, there were 711,000 incidents, or crimes, at approximately 2,000 per day. I do not believe—and perhaps my noble friends can correct me if I am wrong—that that includes fly-tipping on private land, and private farmland in particular, which is an increasing phenomenon. That is a great deal of criminal activity but, in the same statistics pamphlet that the department has produced, there is an equally startling statistic. In the same period, only 2,200 prosecutions were undertaken. Another way of looking at it is that only crimes committed approximately on the equivalent of one day per year were brought before the courts. The odds are nowhere near sufficient to deter either the one-off or the serial offender.

Intellectual Assets: Crime

Viscount Goschen Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd November 2010 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Viscount Goschen]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the threat posed to United Kingdom corporate interests by illicit attempts to acquire proprietary technology and other intellectual capital.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville-Jones)]

My Lords, this Government recognise the risk to the prosperity of the United Kingdom from the loss of intellectual assets, and work is afoot to obtain accurate information as to the size and nature of that loss. The Government provide advice to private sector companies on defending their systems against cyberthreats. The transformative cybersecurity strategy, which the Government are now developing, will strengthen our collective ability to tackle cyberespionage and cyberattacks that target UK intellectual capital.

[Viscount Goschen]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reassuring and informative Answer. Does she accept that the protection of proprietary, valuable technology is absolutely critical to companies’ ability, and indeed willingness, to invest in long-term research and development, and indeed to our ability as a country to attract inward investment?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, I think that the whole House will endorse the view that an economy such as ours depends crucially for its advance and future prosperity on its capacity to innovate and the intellectual capital on which that depends. Therefore, a central part of the Government’s strategy is very much concern not just with national security but with developing, with the private sector, a secure cyberplatform on which investment in this country from both domestic companies and companies abroad can be based.